Chapter XXII: Section XIII

_Additional account of Marshland—Parkin—Bishop of Ely’s manor_, _in Terrington—Queen Henrietta—Admiral Bentinck—Cross Keys—Demolishers of the banks prosecuted and suppressed—High Tides—Destructive Inundations—Principal divisions of Marshland_.

Being here to quit Wisbeach, we shall now recross the ditch, {112} and take another turn in Marshland. In this remarkable District, as has been already intimated, scarce any edifices are to be seen, either of ancient or modern date, that are worthy of very particular attention, except the parish churches; and of them it does not seem necessary to give here any further description: but it may be just hinted, that next to Walpole St-Peter’s, already described, the two Terringtons, one of the Tilneys, West-Walton, and Walsoken, are deemed the most considerable and remarkable. Some account of them may be found in Parkin’s History of Freebridge Hundred and half.

In the same work may also be found a pretty distinct and circumstantial account of the different manors in this district, one of which belonged formerly to the Crown, as a royal desmesne, and was repeatedly settled on some of our queen’s consorts, as part of their jointures.—It lies in Terrington, and is called the bishop of Ely’s manor, having once belonged to his great lordship of West-Walton, Wisbeach, &c. It remained in the See of Ely till the death of bishop _Cox_, in 1581, when it came to the Crown by an Act of Parliament passed in the 4th of Elizabeth. James I. granted it with all its appurtenances to his eldest son Henry, and after his decease, to his other son Charles prince of Wales, on whose marriage it was settled on his queen, as a part of her jointure; from which, however, it has been thought not very likely that she ever derived much benefit. {113} In the reign of Charles II. it was again settled on Catherine of Lisbon, his consort, as part of her dower or jointure, and was farmed by Sir James Chapman Fuller, bart. In 1696, William Bentinck, earl of Portland, had a grant of it from king William. Admiral Bentinck, a descendant of that family, is the present possessor of it, and of the greatest part of Terrington.—Somewhere upon this estate of his, is said to be one of the best spots in the whole country for forming a Decoy.—The Admiral, within these few years, has added to his possessions here a large extent of salt marshes, which he has rescued from the sea, and secured by strong and capital embankments. No part of his valuable territory here exceeds this newly recovered tract, in point of fertility: nor is it exceeded, if equalled, by any other part of Marshland: and yet it has been thought, from the high terms on which he lets it, that he himself has overrated its value. This point, however, must be left for him and his tenants to settle as they can.

In Terrington is that Wash, or passage into Lincolnshire, commonly called the _Cross Keys_. “Here (says Parkin) is a guide always attending, to conduct passengers over, bearing a wand or rod in his hand, probably in imitation of Moses, who had a rod when he conducted the Israelites through the Red Sea.” {114} A guide certainly does attend; and it seems he bears a wand; but that he does so in imitation of Moses, was, perhaps, never supposed by any one before Mr. Parkin.—These guides might very probably use a wand, or long rod, for the purpose of sounding the depth of the water, or to discover any unevenness, dangerous holes, or sloughs at the bottom.

The Banks erected by the Romans to secure this country, appear to have been well constructed (as was generally the case with the great works of that people) and they served probably for ages as effectual bulwarks against the encroachment of the ocean. In a long course of time, however, they would naturally fall into decay; and the Saxons, who succeeded the Romans, being never very remarkable for their attention to such matters, or their skill in the management of them, it is not to be wondered that we often hear in aftertimes of breaches in the banks; and of high tides, or great inland floods deluging and desolating the country.

As long ago as the reign of Edward I. we read of certain lawless people making breaches in the banks, and resisting those who would have stopt them; upon which the king is said to have appointed certain persons to inquire into those misdemeanours, and punish the offenders. Afterward, in the same reign, mischievous persons are said to have thrown down the bank at _Little-lode_; when a new commission was issued to search after the offenders and bring them to justice. Another commission was issued some few years after, when Robert Russel, bailiff to the Abbot of Ramsey, John Mayner, Walter Halleman and others, were found out as offenders, having by force of arms, broke down the Dam at _Smalelode_, and Richard Curteys the other at _Wadynstowe_; and the Sheriff was ordered to apprehend them. All this seems very plainly to indicate, that, even in the reign of our boasted _English Justinian_, the state of things in this country was very different from what it was in that of the immortal _Alfred_. {116} In the 22, of Henry VIII. an act passed, making it felony to demolish the sea banks, which seems to have put an effectual stop to those flagitious proceedings.

Among the shocking inundations, from which this low country greatly suffered in former times, the following seem to be the most remarkable.—In the year 1236, on the morrow after Martinmas-day, and the eight following days, the sea, by the violence of the wind, was raised to such a height, that the banks, yielding to the force of the water, were broken so, that “of small craft, cattle, and men,” great multitudes were destroyed. A similar calamity happened about nineteen years afterward. Also in 1437, by a breach in the bank of Wisbeach Fen, 4,400 acres of land were overflowed. Another of those disastrous events happened on Monday and Tuesday, the second and third of October, 1570, by which all Marshland together with the town of Wigenhale, were overflowed with salt water; so that from Old Lynn to Magdalen-bridge there were not left ten roods of the bank whole and firm, to the very great damage of the whole country. How or when that damage was repaired, or the banks restored to their former state, does not appear; but in the 39th of the same reign (that of Elizabeth) complaint was made at a Session of Sewers, that through neglect of keeping the water in at Rightforth Lode within the crests of the same, the grounds on the north side of the said Lode were, in time of great inundations, overflown, which occasioned the tenants, for avoiding the water, to cut the old Powdike, and issue the said water into Marshland Fen, to the great loss of the inhabitants and commoners there. It was therefore ordained and decreed, by the commissioners, that whoever should so transgress in future, should be fined 20_l._ for every such default.

After this, on the 1st of April 1607 (5. Jac.) there happened a mighty tide, which broke Catt’s bank, and drowned Clenchwarton. About 1610, provision was made for draining the waters of Oldfield, Outwell, &c. without issuing them through Broken Dike into Marshland, and also for a general repair of all the banks. How far these measures were carried on, or effected, cannot now be said; but they proved entirely ineffectual to secure the country from that dreadful inundation of the sea, which happened on November 1, 1613 (11 Jac.) and which laid all Marshland and parts adjacent under water, and proved exceedingly calamitous to the whole country. In commemoration of this most disastrous event, the following rather quaint Inscription was set up on the East Wall of the south aisle in Wisbeach Church—

“To the immortal praise of God Almighty, that saveth his people in
all adversities, be it kept in perpetual memory, That on the
Feast-Day of _All saints_, being the first of November in the year of
our Lord 1613, late in the night, the sea broke in through the
violence of a North East wind, meeting with a Spring Tide, and
overflowed all _Marshland_, with the town of _Wisbeche_, both on the
north side and on the south; and almost the whole Hundred round
about; to the great danger of men’s lives, and the losse of some;
besides the exceeding great lossc which these counties sustained
through the breach of the banks, and spoil of corn, cattle, and
housing, which could not be estimated.”

Dugdale in his History of Embanking has preserved—

“An Abstract of the losses in general (sustained on the above
occasion) as they were presented by the Jurors of several Hundreds at
the Session of Sewers held at Lynn, December 9, 1613.—_Within_ the
Ring of Marshland the statement of the said losses is as
follows—_Terrington_, 10,416_l_; _Walpole_, 3,000_l_; _West-Walton_,
850_l_; _Walsoken_, 1,328_l_; _Emneth_, 150_l_; _Wigenhale_ and
_South Lynn_, 6,000_l_; _Tilney_ and _Islington_, 4,380_l_;
_Clenchwarton_, 6,000_l_; _West_ and _North Lynn_, 4,000_l_—in all
35,834_l_.—_Without_ the Ring of Marshland, the damage was far less
considerable, and is given as follows, _Gaywood_, 205_l_; _South
Wotton_, 313_l_; _North Wotton_, 810_l_; _Watlington_, 500_l_;
_Totnel_ cum _Wormegay_, 60_l_; _Holm_ cum _Thorpland_, 40_l_; _Stow
Bardolf_, 100_l_: in all 2,028_l_; which added to the former account
will amount to no less a sum than 37,862_l_.”—A sum equal, perhaps,
to near half a million of our money.

The damages at or about Wisbeach, and _out of Norfolk_, are not included in the above abstract; though they must, doubtless, have been very considerable, and probably not much less than the former: the whole together must, of course, have been enormous, and equal to many hundred thousand pounds of our money.

In the months of January and February, and particularly on the 23rd of March in the ensuing year (1614,) the country sustained much additional damage from the snows that had fallen, and which had occasioned vast floods from the upland countries upon their going off. A great part of Marshland, from the bank called the Edge, between the towns and Emneth, to the New Podike, was overflowed with fresh water, by divers breaches, between Salter’s Lode and Downham Bridge. The country to the south of Wisbeach also suffered greatly on the occasion; as did likewise the greater part of the land within South Eaubrink in Holland, which was so overflowed and damaged, from Spalding to Tydd St. Giles, as to be almost entirely lost for that year.—From these premises it evidently appears, that the boasted fertility, and numerous advantages of Marshland and the adjacent parts have often been woefully counterbalanced by disadvantages and evils of a most serious and distressing nature; so as to leave the inhabitants but very little room to exult over their less wealthy countrymen, whose lot is fallen in the more sterile and rugged parts of the kingdom.

Before we finish this Section, it may be proper to say something of the principal divisions of Marshland, and its extent, which we often find differently represented. In its fullest extent, or _within its ring_, as it is sometimes expressed, Marshland comprehends the following parishes, (with the exception of part of that of St. German’s, which lies on the eastern side of the river Ouse.)—1. Emneth. 2. Walsoken. 3. West Walton. 4. Walpole St Andrew’s. 5. Walpole St Peter’s. 6. Terrington St Clement’s. 7. Terrington St John’s. 8. Clenchwarton. 9. North Lynn. 10. West Lynn. 11. Tilney All Saints. 12. Tilney St. Lawrence. 13. Islington cum Tilney. 14. Wigenhale St. Mary’s. 15. Wigenhale St. German’s. 16. Wigenhale St. Mary Magdalen.—In another view, as a privileged district, and, particularly, as interested in the _Smeeth_, Marshland has been considered as much less extensive, comprehending only eleven parishes, or rather confined to _seven towns_, or townships: and then N. and W. Lynn, with the three Wigenhales are excluded. These townships; or the seven towns of Marshland, as they are usually called, are thus enumerated—1. Emneth. 2. Walsoken. 3. West Walton. 4. The two Walpoles, both under one. 5. The two Terringtons, both under one. 6. Clenchwarton. 7. The two Tilneys and Islington, all under one, or constituting one township.—At what time this division of the district into seven townships took place, does not appear. It was, probably, at a remote period, and before the formation of the eleven parishes, which these townships now contain. It may, perhaps not unreasonably be presumed to have originated under the East-Anglian government, at an early period of the Heptarchy:—if not, indeed, even before either the Heptarchy, or yet the East-Anglian government had ever sprung into existence.